5. Limits on the size of classes;

6. Requirements of particular instructional methods; 7. Specifications regarding required equipment;

8. Determination of minimum goals of attainment for pupils;

9. Any kind of specific control over the training of teachers.

In each of these features it is admitted that the Federal Government might be able to determine and enforce standards that would improve the programs maintained by some localities. It is believed, however, that such details should be left to the appropriate State and local officials and should not be assumed by the Federal agency. The influence of the Federal Government in improving the program in details such as these can be exercised through its advisory service and through the publication of bulletins and the results of research.

State control vs. Federal control. The management of the present federally aided program of vocational education departs in considerable measure from the principles of sound relationship here suggested. In effect, the Federal agency for vocational education now enters into a contract with the States, and through the States with the local communities, by which the schools agree to set up a program according to a plan largely controlled and finally approved by the Federal authorities, in return for a grant of part of the funds necessary to maintain the approved program.

Many local communities prefer to operate a program of Vocational education according to their own ideas, and do not accept the support offered by the Federal Government in return for the cession of the control of their program. The leaders in such communities are of the opinion that their own plans for vocational education fit the needs of their communities better than plans drawn to meet the approval of Federal officials. Many such communities are operating programs of vocational education that seem to be effective in meeting the needs of their communities. It is extremely doubtful whether the judgment of the Federal

authorities as to what features are needed in these local programs has been or will be as good as the judgment of the local authorities in communities where well-qualified educational leadership is available.

At the same time it must be recognized that effective leadership may not be and probably is not provided in all the States and local communities. Where State and local leadership is deficient, the young people who should be served by the program could be saved from paying the penalty of limited opportunities by the intervention of wise Federal leadership with power to introduce the needed educational facilities. It seems entirely probable that on the average the Federal leadership would be at least as intelligent as that generally found in States and local communities.

If the Federal officers under such circumstances should happen to be of a dictatorial type, lacking respect for State and local leadership, and with firmly entrenched notions regarding the type of program that should be operated, the situation could very easily develop into an undesirable form of bureaucracy. The authority to withhold Federal funds, for example, may become the opportunity for the promulgation of the peculiar ideas of individuals holding responsible Federal positions. The two objectives, that of meeting the personal desires of a small group of Federal officials, and that of meeting national needs, may not always coincide.

It seems that inevitably in a program of Federal grants for education a decision must be made as to which of two possible undesirable outcomes is the more to be feared: (1) The ineffective operation of the program in some State and local areas; or (2) the development of an undesirable degree of control in the Federal agency. Neither of these undesirable outcomes would occur if there was wise leadership in all areas and at all the levels of administrative control. The chances of unintelligent leadership at some time and place in the program are so great, however, that in a practical view of the matter it seems necessary to organize safeguards to protect as far as possible against these unfortunate outcomes.

There appears to be no simple formula by which the unfortunate results of unsound leadership in both Federal and State or local areas may be avoided. It seems necessary to make a choice as to whether Federal bureaucracy or ineffectiveness in some State and local programs is the more undesirable condition, and to protect against that rather than the other. Even though it be granted that the two conditions are equally undesirable, opinions differ markedly as to their imminence. Experience in the present investigation permits the rather broad generalization that persons connected closely with the Federal Government commonly seem to feel assured that undesirable Federal dictation is unlikely to occur, whereas persons outside the Federal Government are usually rather certain that this unfortunate development is very likely to occur sooner or later if power is lodged in the central agency.

The reconciliation of this conflict of opinion has not seemed possible in the present investigation. The point of view has been deliberately adopted, after mature consideration, that in the long run it is better to have an educational program of national concern operated with some lack of effectiveness in a few States and local communities than to lodge dictatorial powers in even the most benevolent of Federal agencies.

Reforming the present situation.-In the long run the greatest accomplishment in vocational education will be attained by permitting and encouraging the States to work out their own plans for vocational education, not by imposing on the States plans and policies developed centrally in a Federal office. Even though Federal funds are provided for the support of the activity, the States should be encouraged to think of it as their own program, not as one prescribed from Federal sources.

The requirement that the States shall set up their programs according to a plan is an excellent arrangement; the planning should be a joint responsibility of the Federal and State governments, but Federal agents should not be in a position to dominate the situation except in case of specific requirements in the statutes. A State should be encouraged

in every way to make the best plan it can for vocational education, and advisory service can well be supplied by the Federal Government. When the plan is finally adopted, however, there should be no doubt that it is equally as acceptable to the State as to the Federal Government. Evidence obtained in the conferences held in connection with this investigation indicates that, because of pressures from Federal agents, at times States have in the past adopted plans that were not, in the judgment of their officers, the best for their local situation.

It seems probable that there is no easy or simple solution in the program of vocational education to this problem of freeing the States from Federal domination. To a considerable extent the objective must be accomplished by building up in the States the idea that they are or should be responsible for their own programs. A revision of the basic statutes is clearly necessary, and some changes in the policies and the attitudes of the personnel of the Federal Office would doubtless be an important step toward this end.

In a number of cases the State legislation pertaining to vocational education is tied directly to the Federal legislation. This is without doubt a mistake, for any important changes in the Federal statutes would be disturbing to the State legislation, and might require complete revision or the enactment of new provisions. The procedure is objectionable, furthermore, because it indicates too great a dependence of the State on the Federal relationship. It would be far better for the States to set up their basic legislation for vocational education in complete independence of the requirements of the Federal program. Such requirements as the formal acceptance of the act and the designation of a responsible agency of control within the State could be cared for in a separate enactment.

CHAPTER V

STATE AND LOCAL ORGANIZATION

Long-established practice in the United States places the responsibility for the operation of the system of public education with the States rather than with the Federal Government. In undertaking the program of subsidies to vocational education, the position of the Federal Government was unmistakably that of "cooperating with the States."1 It is important, therefore, in obtaining a comprehensive view of the federally reimbursed program of vocational education to examine the organization in the State and local school systems.

State Administrative Organization

The Smith-Hughes Act requires each State participating in the program to designate or create a State board for vocational education. The Act further specifies that the Federal Board for Vocational Education (now the Commissioner of Education), in its relation with the State, shall operate through the State board for vocational education. In order to comply with the provisions of the Smith-Hughes Act, each State either has set up a new State board for vocational education or has given this designation to some existing board, usually the State board of education.

In all but 3 States the chief State school officer, usually known as the State superintendent or commissioner of education, serves as the executive officer of the State board in charge of vocational education. This officer of the State board for vocational education is also a member of the board in a majority of the States. In 13 States the chief State school officer is both executive officer of the board and the State director of vocational education. In 11 States, however, the position of State director of vocational education is combined with some other position such as State super1 Smith-Hughes Act, sec. 2.